Pronouncement of Judgment

Pronouncement of Judgment: Live updates

The Constitution Bench today referred to a larger bench the question of whether Part XIV of Finance Act, 2017 could have been validly passed as a Money Bill.

 

On the issue of whether the rules framed under Section 184 of the Act suffered from excessive delegation of legislative authority to the executive, the majority found that this was not the case. Nevertheless, the Court found infirmities in some of the rules framed and directed the Central Government to re-formulate them in the following way:

 

• Ensure that the rules are in line with the decision in RK Jain

 

• Rules should be non-discriminatory

 

• Tribunal members shall hold a rank not lesser than that of a High Court judge

 

There was a separate part-concurring part dissenting opinion by DY Chandrachud J who held that Part XIV could not have been passed as a Money Bill. Observing that a bill can qualify as a Money Bill only if it falls in one of the clauses from (a) to (g) of Article 110, Chandrachud J held that Part XIV did not fall into any of these. He also called for the setting up of an All- India Tribunal Service for the selection of tribunal personnel.

 

A separate concurring opinion was also delivered by Deepak Gupta J with certain suggestions for the functioning of tribunals.

 

(Detailed summary of judgment to follow)